SOMA OATHAK Vs. STATE OF PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By registered sale deed the petitioner had purchased some lands. The private-respondent No. 4 alleging that he was an existing adjoining raiyat sought to pre-empt this purchase and filed an application in this regard before the respondent-D.C.L.R. Bhagalpur, in terms of Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. While filing the said application it is provided by the rules in respect thereof that he must deposit the consideration amount plus ten percent and annex a receipt thereof to his application. Further he must notice the vendor and vendee by registered post and must annex proof thereof. Admittedly, these two things were not complied with. Petitioner, being the vendee, on being noticed, objected to the pre-emption application. Objection was that the respondent had only disclosed that he had purchased certain adjoining lands but the detals of purchase was not given. The claim of the respondent, being adjoining raiyat, was disputed. It was then said that the pre-emption application itself was not maintainable inasmuch as filing of challan showing deposit of the money and proof of sending notices to the vendor and vendee, as required at the time when pre emption application was filed. The matter was heard before the D.C.L.R. The D.C.L.R. dismissed the pre-emption application on the ground of maintainability holding that in absence of money receipt being filed and in absence of evidence of notice being sent and appended to the application of pre-emption, the application was not maintainable.

(3.) I may mention here that it was admitted case of the parties that money was deposited subsequent to the filing of the application and whatsoever notices were sent after filing of the application but both were done within the time available. Against this order, the respondent appealed to the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector held that requirement of annexing receipts showing payment and with regard to notices were not mandatory as they were directory. They having been complied it should not be said that the pre-emption application was not maintainable. Having thus held instead of remanding the matter for consideration of merits, he merely held that in course of arguments, it was not disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the private-respondent was not an adjoining raiyat and thus he allowed the appeal, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Board of Revenue by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of the Board of Revenue who has allowed the pre-emption application.